Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. United States

7 Citing cases

  1. Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. U.S.

    350 U.S. 488 (1956)   Cited 12 times

    Pp. 490-491. 218 F.2d 702, reversed and remanded. Elizabeth Hulen Grayson argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the brief were T. H. Watkins, W. H. Watkins and P. H. Eager.

  2. United States v. One 1960 Ford Pickup Truck

    306 F.2d 106 (5th Cir. 1962)

    On the basis of the testimony introduced by appellant on this point, the Court was without authority to grant the remittitur. Granting of relief under the forfeiture remission statute is not a matter of equity or discretion until the applicable conditions precedent to such relief have been fully met. Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. United States (5th Cir.), 218 F.2d 702. The early leading case on this question is Universal Credit Company v. United States (4th Cir.), 111 F.2d 764. The question has been before this Court on a sufficient number of times for the matter to be well settled here. See United States v. One 1950 Lincoln Sedan (5th Cir.), 196 F.2d 639; United States v. Dodd (5th Cir.), 205 F.2d 260; United States v. One 1955 Model Ford 2-Door Coach (5th Cir.), 261 F.2d 125.

  3. United States v. One 1955 Model Ford 2-door Coach

    261 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1958)   Cited 5 times

    But that is of little moment, for if otherwise timely and sufficient, a single inquiry at the Federal office having jurisdiction over all of the requisite localities specified in section 3761(b)(3) was all that was required. Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 1956, 350 U.S. 488, 76 S.Ct. 536, 100 L.Ed. 580, reversing 5 Cir., 1955, 218 F.2d 702, rehearing denied 220 F.2d 279 (with dissenting opinion), and, sub nom. United States v. One 1951 Chevrolet Tudor Automobile, D.C.E.D.La., 1955, 121 F. Supp. 265. However, no trade or sale was then made. It was not until seven months later, on January 10, 1957, that Claimant sold an entirely different automobile to White — the 1955 Ford involved in this libel.

  4. Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. United States

    220 F.2d 279 (5th Cir. 1955)

    Rehearing denied. For former opinion, see 218 F.2d 702, which affirmed 121 F. Supp. 265. A.R. Cristovich, Sr., A.R. Christovich, Jr., New Orleans, La., Elizabeth Watkins Grayson, Jackson, Miss., for appellant.

  5. United States v. Bond Finance Company

    219 F.2d 534 (5th Cir. 1955)

    This will not do. Upon the record in this case, the section invoked by the United States applies, and since claimants confessedly did not comply with it, they were not entitled to mitigation. United States v. O'Dea Finance Co., 8 Cir., 111 F.2d 358; Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 5 Cir., 172 F.2d 552, 553; One 1951 Chevrolet Pickup Truck, Motor No. JBA504187 v. U.S., 5 Cir., 212 F.2d 662; United States v. McArthur, 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 343; United States v. One 1950 Dodge Sedan, 5 Cir., 211 F.2d 738; Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. U.S., 5 Cir., 218 F.2d 702. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to deny the claims.

  6. United States v. One 1955 Model Ford 2-Door Coach

    160 F. Supp. 47 (S.D. Ala. 1958)   Cited 1 times

    1. The Court concludes as a matter of law that claimant was not required to make an inquiry of but one of the officers specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3617(b)(3), and after claimant received a negative reply from the Federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit in Birmingham, Alabama, claimant was protected regardless of the purchaser's record or reputation with or among other officers or at other headquarters, because the Unit had jurisdiction over both the county in which the interest was acquired and in the county of the purchaser's residence. Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. United States, D.C., 121 F. Supp. 265, affirmed 5 Cir., 218 F.2d 702, reversed 1956, 350 U.S. 488, 76 S.Ct. 536, 100 L.Ed. 580. 2.

  7. United States v. One 1956 Buick 4-Door Sedan

    144 F. Supp. 19 (E.D. Va. 1956)

    There is no contest of the forfeiture phase of the case and the sole question is whether the petitioner, Associates Discount Corporation, a finance company having accepted an assignment of a conditional sales contract when the automobile was purchased by one James Brown, is entitled to remission of the forfeiture to the extent of its interest pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3617.         The facts of this case present the converse of the situation which existed in Murdock Acceptance Corporation v. United States, 350 U.S. 488, 76 S.Ct. 536, 100 L.Ed. , reversing 5 Cir., 220 F.2d 279, 5 Cir., 218 F.2d 702, and United States v. One 1951 Chevrolet Tudor Auto., D.C., 121 F.Supp. 265. In the instant controversy the petitioner, before acquiring its interest in the contract, telephoned the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Richmond, Virginia, which office is acknowledged to be the appropriate agency for making inquires as to the record or reputation for violations of liquor laws.